Chair Wixom called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. on Thursday, June 18, 2009, with all members present except Regents Alden, Page and Rawson.Chair Wixom related that Mr. Stavros Anthony has resigned as a member of the Board of Regents due to his election to and the resulting swearing-in as Las Vegas City Councilman.Regent Leavitt read a statement into the record from Regent Alden expressing his apologies for not being in attendance due to health reasons (statement dated June 18, 2009, on file in the Board office). Regent Knecht requested that Chair Wixom extend to Regent Alden the Board’s best wishes during this time. Regent Rawson entered the meeting.Mr. Ernest Michael Elliott and Mr. Caleb Darwin Elliott led the pledge of allegiance.Regent Rawson offered the invocation.1. Information Only – Introductions (Agenda Item #1)–President Lucey introduced WNC’s incoming Faculty Senate Chair, Mr. Gil Martin.Chair Wixom related that the WNC Wildcats baseball team has been one of the strongest junior college baseball teams in the nation since the team’s inception four years ago. WNC had a stellar season, winning both the Scenic West Athletic Conference title, the NJCAA Region 18 Championship and the Western District Championship before going on to the Junior College World Series in Grand Junction, Colorado where they finished third in the nation (full statement on file in the Board office). President Sheehan introduced the incoming TMCC Faculty Senate Chair, Dr. Scott Huber. She introduced Ms. Jennifer Hilbert, Student Activities and Leadership Coordinator for TMCC, and related that Ms. Hilbert would be leaving the institution at the end of June and thanked her for her service to TMCC. Ms. Hilbert introduced incoming Student Body President, Mr. Adam Porsborg. President Sheehan introduced Dr. Jess Carreon as the new Interim Vice President of Academic Affairs and Student Services and related that Mr. Don Lowe had been appointed as the co-project lead for the iNtegrate project at TMCC.President Diekhans introduced their incoming Faculty Senate Chair, Dr. Frank Daniels and GBC’s new Budget and Human Resources Officer, Ms. Sonja Siburt.President Richards introduced Mr. N. Mark Rauls, incoming Faculty Senate Chair and incoming Student Body President, Mr. Nathaniel Waugh. President Maryanski introduced incoming Student Body President Ms. Amsala Alemu-Johnson, and returning NSC Faculty Senate Chair, Mr. Gregory Robinson.President Wells introduced Ms. K.C. King, the Student Body President of DRI’s first graduate student association. He also thanked Dr. David Decker, outgoing Faculty Senate Chair and introduced Dr. Alan Gertler, incoming Faculty Senate Chair.

20. Information Only - Report: Outcomes of the 2009 Session of the Legislature(Agenda Item #21) – (Cont’d.)Ø 2009-11 Enrollment Calculation – Three-year Weighted Average versus Flat Enrollment Growth:· The Legislature approved use of the Flat Enrollment Growth methodology recommended by the Board of Regents:§ The Flat Enrollment method was agreed to be more reasonable particularly given enrollment fluctuations and the uncertainty of the budget situation.· The Flat Enrollment Growth methodology redistributes formula funding resulting in increases at the higher growth institutions and decreases at the lower growth institutions.· Letter of Intent – 2011-13 biennium budgets should utilize the traditional three-year weighted average methodology.Regent Cobb asked if it had been communicated to the legislature that the flat enrollment methodology had been a recommendation from the NSHE presidents. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich stated that had not been communicated in that specific manner. However, once the Board votes to approve something, it then becomes an action of the Board. Regent Cobb felt that perhaps on this particular issue, a direct recommendation from the presidents would have held additional meaning.Ø Formula Funding:· 74.10 % formula funding in FY2010.· 74.12% formula funding in FY2011.· Funding for the previous biennium:o 85.5% in FY2008.o 85.5 % in FY2009.FY2010 and FY2011 effective percentages include one-time stimulus funds that effectively increased the formula percentage by approximately 10%.Regent Gallagher asked if the 10% in stimulus funding was in addition to, or already included in the 74%. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich explained that without stimulus funding, the funded percentage would have been in the mid-60%.Ø Federal ARRA Education Stabilization Funding:· “Waiver” versus “Non-Waiver” debate.· Approved Stabilization Funds.o $92.4 million in FY2010.o $92.4 million in FY2011.Ø Dental Residency Transfer:· The Legislature approved, as recommended by the Board of Regents, the transfer of the Dental Residency Program from the School of Medicine to UNLV’s School of Dental Medicine.

20. Information Only - Report: Outcomes of the 2009 Session of the Legislature(Agenda Item #21) – (Cont’d.)Ø 2009 Letter of Intent:· Future Enrollment Calculation – 2011-13 formula funding budgets should utilize the three-year weighted average methodology.· Non-Formula Equipment Funding – reallocated to NSC for 2009-11 only, 2011-13 non-formula budgets should be restored with equipment funding.· Fee Increases – setting aside the current letter of intent to provide NSHE with flexibility in expending any additional fee increases or surcharges approved by the Board for the 2009-11 biennium – to be included in state budget and authorized by IFC.· Investment Income – 2011-13 budget requests must include investment income.· Athletic Facilities – a study of the funding of athletic facilities at UNR and UNLV.Regent Knecht felt that the basic assumptions built into the formula were invalidated by recent experiences and that perhaps, instead of retreating back to the formula as a fundamental constant, the System needed to consider it in a more general way with a wider set of assumptions. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich agreed. He added that the Chancellor raised some of those questions in his first memorandum in which he asked if the funding formula took into consideration that the state had three research institutions. As the formula is reconsidered, fairness, equity and other issues will need to be considered. Although an interim study was not funded by the legislature, the basic discussion will continue with legislative leadership to determine how such a study could be accomplished.Regent Knecht noted that although a measure may not have been supported by the legislature, did not mean that the System could not pursue sensible analysis and planning. He emphasized that this needed to be a collaborative effort throughout the System that took into account the history, the formula and the actions taken by both the System and legislature.Ø AB564 – Capital Improvement Projects - $334.6 million.· NSHE will receive $87.4 million or 36% of the funding for capital provided under AB564.§ $69.64 million in state funds.§ $17.8 million in non-state funds.o Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment (FF&E)§ UNR, Davidson Math & Science Center - $3.73 million (state funds).§ UNR Center for Molecular Medicine - $7.43 million (state funds).o Planning§ UNLV, Hotel College – $3.22 million (state funds)and $3.22 million(institutional funds).

20. Information Only - Report: Outcomes of the 2009 Session of the Legislature(Agenda Item #21) – (Cont’d.)o New Construction§ HSS, Reno Medical Education Building - $30.99 million (state funds)and $11.09 million (non-state).o Upgrades, Compliance and Critical Maintenance Projects.§ CSN, Cheyenne Laboratory Upgrade and Remodel - $13.38 million (state funds)and $1.0 million (institutional funds).§ WNC, Carson Campus, ADA Compliance - $0.89 million.§ HECC/SHECC, deferred maintenance ($12.5 million).o Fire Science Academy – As part of the Military’s capital budget allocation, the Elko County Readiness Center was approved with $7.93 million (state funds), and an additional $8.63 million in federal funding. AB564 allows the State Public Works Board to approach IFC to determine the site of the new facility, which may include the Fire Science Academy.21. Approved - Handbook Revision, Fee Waivers, Nevada National Guard, POW’s, MIA’s (Agenda Item #22)– The Board of Regents approved Vice Chancellor Jane Nichols’ request of revisions to Board policy concerning registration fee waivers for the children and spouses of certain members for the Nevada National Guard and servicemen identified as prisoners of war or declared missing in action (Title 4, Chapter 17, Section 13 and Title 4, Chapter 18, Section 8). This proposal was brought forward in light of the passage of Assembly Bill 188 of the 2009 Session of the Nevada Legislature (Chapter 28, Statutes of Nevada 2009).(Ref. BOR-22 on file in the Board office)Regent Knecht moved approval of a revision to the Handbook(Title 4, Chapter 17, Section 13 and Title 4, Chapter 18, Section 8). Regent Leavitt seconded.Regent Rawson has always been supportive of this type of legislation but asked if the total fiscal impact of all fee waivers to the System was known. Vice Chancellor Nichols related that a financial impact report was provided to the legislature at the time of testimony. It was important to remember that when the legislature approved a fee waiver, they were in essence creating forgiveness in their own state budget. Regent Rawson requested that the Board be provided a total overall calculation of the fiscal impact of a fee waiver. Chair Wixom concurred with Regent Rawson’s request.Regent Knecht left the meeting.Vice Chancellor Nichols felt that in that context, it was important to note that fee waivers were excluded from the professional schools (Medical, Dental, etc.).Motion carried. Regents Alden, Knecht and Page were absent.

Regent Knecht entered the meeting.22. Approved - Handbook Revision, Free Tuition For Veterans of the Armed Forces (Agenda Item #23)– The Board of Regents approved Vice Chancellor Jane Nichols’ request of revision to Board policy concerning free tuition for veterans of the Armed Forces(Title 4, Chapter 15, Section 3).Under existing state law and Board policy, members of the U.S. Armed Forces who are on active duty and stationed at a military installation in Nevada are deemed residents for tuition purposes and therefore pay resident registration fees only. Non-resident students are traditionally charged registrations fees and non-resident tuition. Senate Bill 318(Chapter 420, Statutes of Nevada 2009)provides that veterans upon honorable discharge from the military shall be deemed residents for tuition purposes, and therefore will be subject to resident registration fees only.(Ref. BOR-23 on file in the Board office)Regent Rawson moved approval of a revision to the Handbook(Title 4, Chapter 15, Section 3). Regent Geddes seconded. Motion carried. Regents Alden and Page were absent.23. Approved - Handbook Revision, Millennium Scholarship (Agenda Item #24)– The Board of Regents approved Vice Chancellor Jane Nichols’ request for revisions to the Board policy on the Governor Guinn Millennium Scholarship program resulting from the passage of Assembly Bill 96 ( Chapter 38, Statutes of Nevada 2009)and Senate Bill 209 (Chapter 192, Statutes of Nevada 2009)during the 2009 Session of the Nevada State Legislature. Specifically, AB96 clarifies that a student who is enrolled in more than one eligible institution is eligible for a Millennium Scholarship if the student meets existing eligibility requirements. SB 209 requires the Board of Regents to establish criteria with respect to students who actively served or participated in a charitable, religious or public service assignment or mission to exempt such students from the 6-year limitation on applications for the Millennium Scholarship. (Ref. BOR-24 on file in the Board office)Regent Geddes moved approval of a revision to the Handbook(Title 4, Section 18, Chapter 19). Regent Gallagher seconded. Motion carried. Regents Alden and Page were absent.The meeting recessed at 9:45 a.m. and reconvened at 10:00 a.m. on Friday, June 19, 2009, with all members present except for Regents Alden and Page. 24. Approved - Discussion of 2009-2011 NSHE Biennial Budget (Agenda Item #25)- The Board of Regents took action to approve: 1) the adoption of a temporary surcharge for registration fees as set forth in the tuition and fee increase reference materials; 2) the adoption of a Code amendment subject to the considerations numbered 1-7 set forth at pages 3-4 in the Memorandum of Chair Wixom and Vice Chair Geddes, dated June 17, 2009, to the NSHE Regents, entitled "Senate Bill 433" Implementation Recommendation;" and 3) the adoption of an emergency amendment of the NSHE Code

24. Approved - Discussion of 2009-2011 NSHE Biennial Budget (Agenda Item #25)– (Cont’d.)(immediately effective for 120 days, to be made permanent by further Board action), in accordance with Title 2, Chapter 1, Sec. 1.3.3.b due to the 2009 legislative budgetary action and NSHE faculty contract provisions (Ref. BOR-25 and handouts available in the Board office).Chair Wixom referred to the memo dated June 17, 2009, (on file in the Board office)from the Chair and Vice Chair of the Board in regard to “SB 433 implementation recommendations.” He expressed his deep appreciation to the System staff, presidents, faculty, students and others that have contributed to this process. He felt it was crucial that the action taken by the Board reflect the legislative intent of SB 433. He related that in his appearance before the legislature in January, he stated that it was the Systems’ view that everyone has “skin in the game.” Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich related that the legislatively mandated furlough program did not work as well in the NSHE as it might in other state agencies because of the academic calendar. As Chair Wixom stated, it was important to comply with the legislative intent. He felt that in this situation, the legislative intent was easily identifiable as everyone needed to participate in reducing pay in order to balance the state’s budget. In recognition that the System could not do that within the context of the NSHE’s Code or its contractual provisions, the legislature adopted an alternative provision that allowed the System to demonstrate how it will cut professional staff costs in some other way. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich continued that while the statutory intent of SB433 could not be implemented in year one of the biennium due to Code and contractual obligations, the presidents have managed those cuts through layoffs and notices of nonrenewal. Secondly, in discussion with the Chair and Vice Chair, the System has not determined any employee group as being more critical than another. The focus remained on the statutory intent and the extent that the System could implement a legal furlough program. For tenured faculty, with implied property rights in continued employment as well as in a continued level of salary, the System could not affect a major change without significantly impacting the Codeor without declaring a financial exigency. In May, the Board determined that making a declaration of financial exigency would not be the best course of action. He advised that although the System will not undertake making major changes to the Code at this time, the situation has exposed weaknesses that will need to be addressed in the future.Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich explained that for tenured faculty, an alternative recommendation had been made to increase their workloads in the second year of the biennium in an amount equivalent to that which others have received furloughs. He asked that the presidents be allowed to manage that adjustment.Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich indicated that it had been asked if discussions should be limited to only those employees that save money directly for the state. He stated that the answer to that question was no. With the exception of DRI, the state did not provide exemptions based on any course of funding. There are many employees in the state of Nevada that are not funded with general fund dollars and those workers are participating in this recommendation.

24. Approved - Discussion of 2009-2011 NSHE Biennial Budget (Agenda Item #25)– (Cont’d.)Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich explained that DRI is fundamentally different than the other institutions in that it is recognized by Nevada Revised Statutes to be more entrepreneurial in nature and dependent upon its faculty and the grants that they receive. He emphasized that the quality of the work between DRI’s faculty and those similarly situated at UNR and UNLV could not be differentiated. However, a fundamental difference does exist in DRI in that it is primarily funded on research grants (approximately 80%),compared to UNR and UNLV that have a significantly smaller base. Except for DRI, the recommendation includes that the source of funding for particular professional employees not be a basis for differentiation of the furloughs.Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich stated that Chair Wixom’s concept that everyone share in the pain was important. He related that the legislature expected a student fee increase to occur, adding that the calculations for the overall impact of the budget cuts had included the impact of a 5% fee increase. The taxpayers of Nevada have been asked to participate, as well as the classified staff through a legislatively-mandated furlough program. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich stated that System Administration salaries would also be reduced because it was the right thing to do.Regent Geddes felt it was critical that the two recommendations (increased fees and the faculty and professional salaries)be considered together. He felt that the recommendation brought forward all of the issues within the legislative intent and within legal parameters. He also felt it was important to take into consideration that the System had started with a recommendation for an approximate 50% budget reduction and the possibility of having to make a declaration of financial exigency. He acknowledged that the furloughs did have a sunset. However, he felt that the recommendation was perfect in that everyone hated it because everyone was losing something. He personally would rather have seen a higher student fee increase but recognized that it was a balancing act. The System has never seen this situation before and needed to adapt, adding that he felt the recommendation offered the best compromise.Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich asked that the faculty and professional staff be allowed to voluntarily begin their furloughs in the first year, thereby spreading it over the entire biennium. The System was also asking that the presidents have the authority, in consultation with the faculty leaders, to devise a voluntary program and determine the options available in assisting the faculty in meeting their obligations to the students. Dr. John Filler, Faculty Senate Chair, UNLV, and the Chair of Chairs, read the following statement into the record on behalf of the Council of the Faculty SenateChairs:“The Faculty Senate Chairs of the Nevada System of Education applaud the efforts of the institutional presidents and the newly appointed Chancellor in drafting the proposal. We recognize the sacrifices that have been made by a great number of individuals and the hard work done by so many to bring this to this point. We are particularly pleased to observe in this proposal the flexibility afforded to the institutions in its implementation. We believe that the NSHE Code should be preserved to the greatest extent possible and should be suspended or changed only after careful and lengthy discussion. We trust that

24. Approved - Discussion of 2009-2011 NSHE Biennial Budget (Agenda Item #25)– (Cont’d.)these discussions will continue to take place. We believe that consultations between the faculty senates and the presidents in this proposal are beneficial and healthy and are encouraged to see that this proposal supports this position. However, the Faculty Senate Chairs would like to draw your attention to two areas of concern. First, we support treating tenure track faculty the same as the proposal treats tenured faculty. The tenured track faculty is the most important to our future and the easiest for us to lose. We understand from System Counsel that if that were the Board’s will, it could be accomplished relatively easily. Secondly, they would support applying salary cuts only to salaries paid with state funds, especially if the cuts would not provide any savings to the NSHE. Faculty members funded through outside sources often bring students, money and recognition to the System. In conclusion, we understand the gravity of the situation and realize that the Regents have the best interest of the students and faculty in mind and they share that value. Thank you for the support you have provided us under these difficult conditions.”As UNLV Faculty Senate Chair, Dr. Filler, stated that the UNLV Faculty Senate, on behalf of the more than 2,000 tenure and non-tenured faculty, wished to express their appreciation for the very difficult task the Board of Regents has in trying to reach an equitable plan for dealing with a very difficult financial situation. They joined the Board in the recognition that above all else, the System must preserve and grow the excellent educational programs and critical research initiatives of the institutions. He concluded by stating that no less was owed to the students or citizens of the State of Nevada.Dr. P. Elliott Parker, Faculty Senate Chair, UNR, provided the following statement on behalf of the UNR Faculty Senate: “The faculty of UNR is grateful to the Legislature, the Board of Regents, and the citizens of this state for their efforts to defend higher education from a devastating budget reduction that would have effectively dismantled the NSHE system into the indefinite future. We also want to express our admiration for our students for recognizing that the education they receive is valuable, and appreciate that they are willing to pay more to help us keep providing it. We recognize that this proposal represents serious work by many people, in an effort to balance what the Legislature wanted us to do with what we can legally do and what is wise to do. We know that the regents are doing their best to balance these demands.

The Legislature recognized in SB 433 that the NSHE was a special and complicated case, and gave the regents the flexibility to institute pay cuts in other ways. We need to take this opportunity to make sure that we are taking the wisest path.

This proposal explicitly exempts DRI’s professional staff if they are entirely funded by grants. We strongly support this. What we would ask you to understand is that there are units at UNR that are exactly like DRI, and we assume these exist at UNLV too. The Terawatt Facility and the Center for the

24. Approved - Discussion of 2009-2011 NSHE Biennial Budget (Agenda Item #25)– (Cont’d.)Application of Substance Abuse Technologies, for example, both depend entirely on grants. There are also many research programs within departments that greatly augment their budgets and their support for students through extramural grant activities, and provide additional overhead for the university.

Some of you work for law firms, or other similar professional firms. Suppose the office manager has reduced the wages of the secretarial staff because of budget problems. To be fair, your office manager tells you that you must also work less and reduce your billable hours. It seems to me that that would only make the firm’s budget problem worse. The UNR faculty senate overwhelmingly supported a resolution to apply reductions in state support only to state-funded salaries. At least, we should allow our Presidents to exempt some of our people from salary cuts if no savings would result. The principle that exempts DRI is equally applicable to similarly-generated funds at any of the NSHE institutions. One part of the rationale for making higher education absorb most of the state’s budget reduction was that higher education should and could be more entrepreneurial, more like DRI, and less dependent on state funding. Thus, I think we may be missing out on an opportunity. There are potential outside resources now available to many of our people. Now is the time to develop creative policy that empowers and incentivizes faculty seeking these resources, but we have rules that undermine some of the incentive to go after them, and these salary cuts will make it worse. Let us take this time of crisis to encourage our people to apply for more grants and contracts, to allow them the opportunity to make up for the reduction in their state funding, and to encourage more entrepreneurship by our faculty. If there is interest by our Board in exploring this issue further, there is no need to change the proposal before it. They have been advised by counsel that the specifics can be developed and presented prior to the August Board meeting.” (Statement on file in the Board office,)

Dr. Gregory Brown, Professor, Department of History, UNLV, and a representative of the Nevada Faculty Alliance (NFA), related that the NFA has taken a great interest in the development of this proposal and expressed their support of the statements made by the Faculty Senate Chairs. They were particularly supportive of the efforts made to minimize intrusions in the Code and to preserve the integrity of faculty rights and protections. They were gratified that the proposal focused on workload adjustment that ensures that personal contributions made to solving the budget crisis go to keeping course sections open and students enrolled. They requested that the Board consider a modification that concerns “tenure track” or “junior faculty.” Dr. Brown related that category of faculty are fewer than 500 System-wide and are by definition at the lower end of the salary schedule. The NFA felt that inclusion of that category of faculty would help tremendously with retention. He added that the junior faculty, by de facto, would be included and impacted by the recommended adjustment and felt it would be more efficient and more useful to the students and to the long term interest of the System for that category of faculty to be included in the recommendation.

24. Approved - Discussion of 2009-2011 NSHE Biennial Budget (Agenda Item #25)– (Cont’d.)Regent Crear asked what the line was between tenure and tenure-track faculty, adding that no one wants to take a furlough. He asked how the System could say that one position was more important than another. Dr. Filler explained that when a person accepts a tenure track position, he or she understands there are additional expectations on which they will be evaluated. Due to those additional expectations and closer scrutiny on a yearly and mid-tenure basis, tenured faculty are highly qualified and recruited at a national level. The distinction between tenure and tenure-track faculty is mainly a distinction of seniority, although the expectations are the same which explains the preference for them to be grouped together. Dr. Parker added that one of the concerns expressed was that the time lost for furlough days may impact when a tenured-track faculty is eligible for full tenure.Regent Crear noted that tenure did not exist in other agencies or businesses. He questioned if the Board had an obligation to protect tenure-track or if the obligation lied with finding ways to keep the doors open and classes available so students could graduate with a sound quality of education. Dr. Parker felt that the distinction made between the private sector and academia was an excellent one. However, he related that the situation between assistant professors that were up for tenure track was separate from the issue of faculty funded by grants and contracts, as the faculty funded with grants and contracts could leave and take their funding with them. He was mostly concerned that the System make wise decisions for its long-term interests, that the researchers be retained and that the assistant professors be provided the incentive to stay and have a chance to achieve tenure.Regent Cobb related that when he campaigned for the office of Regent, he routinely heard concerns from the public that the teachers were not teaching and questioned if the recommendation played into that perception. Dr. Filler replied that as a member of the tenured faculty, he had a choice between taking a 4.6% salary reduction or to increase his teaching load. Last year he taught three and three while also maintaining a very good publishing record. He stated that he would be opting to increase his teaching load. He felt that support for a research university came at some cost for direct face-to-face contact and defended his research activities as having a value that informs his teaching. Regent Cobb felt that this argument referred back to the problem that the System does not do enough to sell itself and agreed with Regent Crear’s comments. He also disagreed to a certain extent with the information in the memo regarding the vested property rights of employment. The issue of contract rights concerned him the most, in that it exposed the inability of the presidents in having the flexibility to make decisions.Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich agreed with Regent Cobb’s emphasis that the System needed to sell itself better and that sometimes perception became reality. However, he did not feel that Regent Cobb’s question implied that the faculty was not working hard enough. The workload policies throughout the System were consistent with national workload standards. There may be other legitimate areas of criticism, but he did not feel that was one of them. Regent Cobb indicated that he did not mean to convey that impression. He was more concerned with the public’s perception and his disappointment with the faculty for not helping to sell the System.

24. Approved - Discussion of 2009-2011 NSHE Biennial Budget (Agenda Item #25)– (Cont’d.)Regent Geddes added that he would dispute that anyone on tenure track would lose their progress towards tenure. Although he hoped that the System would not lose professors due to the situation, he understood that opportunities may exist elsewhere. He emphasized that everybody has to give up something and he felt this was the fairest way to deal with the situation.Regent Knecht asked Dr. Filler what the standard workload was currently. Dr. Filler replied that at UNLV the standard workload is 3/3. Regent Knecht asked if that indicated the number of classes and the number of credit hours per class. Dr. Filler replied that was correct, with the average class at UNLV being three credit hours.Regent Knecht observed that, essentially, over the course of the academic year, if the average student load was 15 credit hours per semester, the faculty member, just in instructional terms, is spending half as many hours in class as a student. However, he asked if it was a fair representation to state that faculty members also have advising and administrator duties, as well as research and public service duties. Dr. Filler indicated that was correct. He felt that the faculty workload reports would reflect an average of 55 to 56 hours per week. Regent Knecht did not feel there was a fair claim that the faculty did not work hard enough. He added that in his role as Chair of the Audit Committee, he had requested a cycle of faculty workload audits in order to validate and verify workload compliance. Mr. N. Mark Rauls, Faculty Senate Chair, CSN, related that at CSN the average teaching load is 5/5 but acknowledged that they do have decreased responsibility for research. Regent Knecht agreed that 5/5 was a full time teaching load at any institution, adding that the community college faculty is also obligated to advising, administering and public service duties as well. He also indicated that faculty at the community colleges also contribute to research and participate in comparable professional activities as their counterparts at the universities.Regent Knecht felt that looking at the total factor productivity would allow the System to improve its performance, its value in education as well as the public service it provides. In facing 5% budget cuts, it does not follow that everyone gets there the same way. He expressed his support of the proposal because it let the Board set the policy and then delegated the implementation of that policy to the institutions.Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich related that during the Systems’ normal tuition and fee process, the Board had approved increases over the biennium of 5% per year. That increase had been built into the budget. A recommendation is being made for the Board to consider a subsequent 5% surcharge for each year of the 2009-11 biennium and that will sunset at the end of that biennium. He stated that there was also a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the legislative Letter of Intent and the manner in which any additional fee increases would be built into the permanent budgets of the institutions, and if the presidents would have flexibility on the allocation of those fees. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich added that during the interim, it is important for the System to evaluate its tuition and fees process and consider changes that make more sense. He related that Vice Chancellor Nichols has already initiated that discussion with national leaders on this subject.

24. Approved - Discussion of 2009-2011 NSHE Biennial Budget (Agenda Item #25)– (Cont’d.)Mr. Eli Reilly, ASUN Student Body President, UNR, and the Chair of the Nevada Student Alliance (NSA), related that the students are also citizens of the State of Nevada and subject to the same taxation. The students are willing to step up and endorse Option A of the recommendation before the Board. He related that the current registration fee at UNR is $140.00 per credit hour. A 10% increase would equate to approximately $168.00 additional dollars per student per semester, adding that was a reasonable number. However, he felt that the most important aspect of this increase was that it should be applied to financial aid. He related that $168.00 for some students may make or break their educational success. It was of fundamental importance to the students, institutions and the System that 100% of all future increases must remain on campus.Mr. Adam Cronis, CSUN Student Body President, UNLV, related that he had sent the Board members an e-mail containing data from a recent survey in which approximately 1,000 students responded. An overwhelming number of students indicated that they have been affected by the budget crisis on an individual basis. A majority of the students also indicated that the budget situation has affected their life at UNLV. When it came down to a question of whether the students would support a fee increase, the response was 50/50. He related that the comments included in the survey reflected an equal amount of understanding and begrudging support. He felt that the students understand why an increase was necessary but wanted to see the funds kept at the campus level. He echoed Mr. Reilly’s earlier comments, adding that it is was very important to recognize that the proposed increases may make it very difficult for some students to attain their degrees. However, in order to continue offering the benefits of higher education to the community as a whole, this was a necessary development.On behalf of Mr. Eron Sanchez, SGA President, GBC, Mr. Cronis related that Mr. Sanchez has been interacting with the students on the GBC campus and wished to convey to the Board that the majority of the GBC students understood the need for a fee increase as well.Mr. Nathaniel Waugh, ASCSN President, CSN, indicated his support of Option A. He asked the Board to keep in mind that CSN was experiencing the largest percentage of growth of any institution in the System. However, the students acknowledge the need for shared sacrifice.Mr. Adam Porsborg, ASTM Board Chair, TMCC, indicated the students understood the obstacles being faced by the System and have indicated their support of the fee increase as well. He related that students will almost always be opposed to fee increases. However, it was not always about what is wanted. It was about what was best. He requested that the Board find some way to better inform and educate the students on how the funds will be spent.Dr. Matthew Schofield, Student Body President, School of Dental Medicine, UNLV, related that the budget reductions over the last two years were beginning to constrain the School’s ability to provide proper care to the community. Instead of raising rates for services to the point where the underserved could no longer enjoy proper dental care, the students have decided to pay more in tuition. He related that the School of

24. Approved - Discussion of 2009-2011 NSHE Biennial Budget (Agenda Item #25)– (Cont’d.)Dental Medicine was just coming into its own on a national level and hoped the budget situation would not cause a loss in the education it provides, or of any of the faculty members.Mr. Jeremy Cox, former Student Body President, School of Dental Medicine, UNLV, related that the School of Dental Medicine was different from other programs because it had a set schedule of classes that could not be adjusted. The effects of a budget cut often plays out in the availability of faculty and staff to teach those classes. The increase in tuition would be significant for the dental students(approximately $8,000 over the course of the program)but the students understood the alternative consequences of not being able to complete their education.Ms. Amsala Alemu-Johnson, NSSA President, NSC, indicated their association’s support of Option A, noting that was assuming a tuition increase meant more funds for their education, the increase in part-time faculty and that some percentage of the funds would go to financial aid.Chair Wixom expressed his pride in the students and their willingness to support the recommended tuition increase.Regent Rawson felt that it was important to note that during this budget crisis there has been an increase in enrollment although there has been a decrease in revenue. The System will survive the immediate crisis but it could not sustain this type of pressure. He indicated that he would support giving up his per-diem although he recognized that small amount would not supply a faculty member. He indicated his desire to develop a budget stabilization plan that could be proposed to the legislature to prevent this situation from occurring again. He noted that other states and even other in-state agencies have such a plan and he felt that it was essential.Regent Leavitt felt that it was important for the System to adhere to the legislative intent of SB 433, adding that it would be critical to maintaining and improving the System’s relationship with the legislature.Regent Schofield emphasized that in order to achieve success in any situation, there must be compromise. He added that compromise was needed during the next legislative session so that satisfactory results could be achieved.Regent Knecht asked if the recommendation applied to adjunct faculty. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich felt the answer would be no, explaining that adjunct faculty were not part of the funding calculation. Regent Knecht felt that was an appropriate exception.Regent Crear asked what the total amount realized for the temporary student surcharge would be. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich replied that the 5% tuition increase previously approved by Board would place the per credit hour fee for the 2009/10 year at $136.00. If the Board approves an additional 5% temporary surcharge, the 2009/10 per credit hour fee would then become $142.75. Then in 2010/11, that fee would become $156.70 per credit hour.

24. Approved - Discussion of 2009-2011 NSHE Biennial Budget (Agenda Item #25)– (Cont’d.)Regent Crear asked what the total dollar amount of revenue would be for 2009/10 and then for 2010/11. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich replied that the System would realize approximately $17.7 million in 2009/10 and $37.3 million in 2010/11.Chair Wixom related that the Board would take emergency action that would require further or permanent action within 120 days. Chief Counsel Patterson stated that final action could be taken at either the August or the October Board meeting.Regent Cobb asked for detail on the allocation of the funds. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich explained that the legislature authorized the expenditure of the additional fees, subject to the approval of the Interim Finance Committee. However, the presidents and System staff must first seek the Board’s approval before the Interim Finance Committee could be approached. A number of the presidents have indicated their intent to request to set aside a portion of the fees to offset the damage done by the budget recommendations.Regent Cobb asked for a more specific concept. President Glick related that UNR will request that a portion of the fee be used for access in two different ways, that 25% be allocated for need-based financial aid and that the remainder be used to hire temporary faculty to provide adequate classes.Regent Knecht moved approval of the following three actions: 1) The adoption of Option A--a temporary surcharge for registration fees as set forth in the tuition and fee increase reference materials; 2) The adoption of a Code amendment set forth below which is subject to the considerations numbered 1-7 set forth at pages 3-4 in the Memorandum of Chair Wixom and Vice Chair Geddes to the NSHE Regents, dated June 17, 2009, entitled "Senate Bill 433" Implementation Recommendation;" and 3) The adoption of an emergency amendment of the NSHECode(requires 7 votes and is immediately effective for 120 days, to be made permanent by further Board action), in accordance with Title 2, Chapter 1, Sec. 1.3.3.b due to the 2009 legislative budgetary action and NSHE faculty contract provisions. The proposed amendment to the Code is the adoption of a new Code provision added to Title 2, Chapter 5, as Section 5.5.7, as follows:“Notwithstanding Title 2, Section 5.4, as the 75th Session of the Nevada Legislature has explicitly appropriated a lower amount for NSHE salaries than would otherwise be authorized and appropriate according to the NSHE salary policies,

24. Approved - Discussion of 2009-2011 NSHE Biennial Budget (Agenda Item #25)– (Cont’d.)the Board of Regents does hereby and for the 2009-2011 biennium only, temporarily reduce salaries through the use of unpaid leave in an amount equivalent to the amount of legislative salary cut for FY 2011. The Board shall, to the extent feasible, devise methods that protect base compensation and benefits and shall offer tenured faculty an alternative of unpaid teaching workload increases in lieu of unpaid leave. The various Presidents shall consult with their respective faculty senates regarding the implementation of this section. Unpaid leave or temporary workload increases required by this section are final and not subject to appeal, grievance or reconsideration. The provisions of this section shall constitute constructive notice to all faculty and no individual notice to any such faculty member shall be required hereunder to implement the foregoing. To the extent any conflict or inconsistency between this and any other section of the Code exists, the provisions of this section shall control. This section will terminate on June 30, 2011.” Regent Geddes seconded.Regent Crear asked if the motion would implement a 4% furlough in year two of the biennium for every employee, except for tenured faculty, including the presidents. Chief Counsel Patterson clarified that some administrative faculty do have tenure. However, this furlough would apply to the administrative portion of those salaries on a pro-rata basis. Since the presidents are completely administrative, it would apply completely to them. He clarified that, for this purpose, the term “tenure” applied only to those engaged in instruction.Regent Crear asked if the motion included System staff as well. Chief Counsel Patterson clarified that under the NSHE Code , all professional administrative staff and teaching individuals are termed “faculty.” Regent Crear asked if the motion applied to tenured administrative System professionals. Chief Counsel Patterson indicated that it did.Regent Cobb asked if the motion included the exception for DRI. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich indicated that it did. Chair Wixom added that the exception made for DRI conceivably falls into the doctrine of unintended consequences. He expressed concern for the process of exempting specific groups because he felt that everyone could make a legitimate claim for exemption.Regent Cobb indicated that it could also be said that no one should be exempt, including DRI. Chair Wixom explained that because DRI’s funding sources were so unique, what initially appeared to be a 4-5% reduction could too easily magnify into a 20-25% reduction.

24. Approved - Discussion of 2009-2011 NSHE Biennial Budget (Agenda Item #25)– (Cont’d.)Regent Cobb asked Chair Wixom if a vote in favor of the emergency motion, as it is currently worded, would still allow the Board to address the exemption issue and the “doctrine of unintended consequences” at a subsequent meeting. Chair Wixom stated that was exactly what he was saying, adding that the concern was being addressed under the emergency motion because that allows 120 days for adjustments to be made within the parameters in which the motion was drafted.Chief Counsel Patterson explained that the motion was being proposed in this form at this time because it allowed proper notice to be given for nonrenewal prior to the next contract year, which was legally significant. To include the faculty of DRI in this motion would create significant legal issues not only because DRI was legislatively recognized as a different entity, but because instead of classified staff, they have what are called technologists which are not subject to SB 433 from the standpoint of having a mandatory salary reduction in place. DRI also has separate provisions over notices of nonrenewal, as well as a different definition for the declaration of financial exigency.Regent Cobb asked if DRI were to take the 4% reduction, would the funds still remain at DRI. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich explained that the funds would never reach DRI to begin with because the majority of their funding is in the form of grants.Upon a roll call vote, Regents Schofield, Wixom, Blakely, Cobb, Crear, Gallagher, Geddes, Knecht, Leavitt and Rawson. Motion carried. Regents Alden and Page were absent.Chair Wixom acknowledged that it was not an ideal solution, but in terms of a collaborative approach to a difficult problem, it had been an extraordinary process to have participated in. He expressed his profound gratefulness to the staff, faculty and students and felt that the System could look back over the last few months with great pride.The meeting recessed at 12:04 p.m. and reconvened at 12:18 p.m. on Friday, June 19, 2009, with all members present except for Regents Alden, Gallagher and Page.25. Approved - Procedures & Guidelines Manual Revision, 2009-2011 Student Surcharge Request, School of Dental Medicine, UNLV (Agenda Item #26)– The Board of Regents approved UNLV President David B. Ashley’s request for a UNLV School of Dental Medicine proposed student surcharge for the 2009-2011 biennium 1` (Ref. BOR-26 on file in the Board office).UNLV Provost Smatresk related that the structure of this fee request was parallel to that of the change in graduate student fees. He added that this is a 10% surcharge request that will not be repeated in the second year. The funds will cover approximately half of the budget reductions so that services can be maintained.

25. Approved - Procedures & Guidelines Manual Revision, 2009-2011 Student Surcharge Request, School of Dental Medicine, UNLV (Agenda Item #26) -(Cont’d.)Dean West related that this 10% surcharge would amount to $750.00 per semester for all in-state School of Dental Medicine students. This surcharge would increase the overall cost of a four year dental education from $133,000 to $141,000, which was still below the average estimated public cost of dental education.Regent Crear requested clarification of when the proposed surcharge would be implemented. Dean West indicated that, if approved, the surcharge would become effective beginning in 2009/10.Regent Crear asked if there was a sunset for this fee. Dean West replied that the fee will be reconsidered at each biennium.Regent Crear asked if there had been any student input. Dean West related that this was the fee that Dr. Schofield had referred to during the previous budget discussion.Regent Rawson moved approval of Procedures & Guidelines Manual Revision, 2009-2011 Student Surcharge Request, School of Dental Medicine, UNLV. Regent Leavitt seconded. Motion carried. Regents Alden, Gallagher and Page were absent.Regent Gallagher entered the meeting.26. Approved - Procedures & Guidelines Manual Revision, Registration & Special Fee Request for the Advanced Education Program in Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, UNLV (Agenda Item #27)– The Board of Regents’ approved UNLV President David B. Ashley’s request of a UNLV School of Dental Medicine, Registration and Special Fee Request and Advanced Education Program in Pediatric Dentistry. (Ref. BOR-27 on file in the Board office)UNLV Provost Smatresk related that the proposed fee would be assessed to Pediatric Dental residents only and would replace costs that were provided by an initial start up grant. Dean West related that this fee was to help the Pediatric Dentistry program achieve a self sustaining status when the initial start-up grant (HERSA)is no longer available in three years. Programs across the country are either tuition based or stipend funded, with the average tuition based programs being $20,000 plus $5,000 for fees. This request was for an annual $25,000 fee plus $5,000 for special fees.Chair Wixom requested further explanation for whom and how the fee will be allocated. Dean West replied that the proposed fee will be applicable specifically to the pediatric dentistry residents. She stated that there are currently four students in the program. Next year there will be six in the first semester and then four in the second semester. Dean West indicated that the students have all been informed of the potential for an additional tuition-based fee.

26. Approved - Procedures & Guidelines Manual Revision, Registration & Special Fee Request for the Advanced Education Program in Pediatric Dentistry, School of Dental Medicine, UNLV (Agenda Item #27)– (Cont’d.)Regent Crear asked if the students complete their dental school education and decide that they want to go into pediatric dentistry, does it cost them an additional $25,000. Dean West clarified that it would be $25,000 per year of the two-year program. Regent Crear asked for clarification if it was $25,000 plus the $5,000 fee. Dean West indicated that the additional $5,000 fee was for supplies and equipment but the total yearly fee would be $30,000. She added that the average annual salary for a pediatric dentist was $191,000. Chair Wixom asked Chief Counsel Patterson to provide guidance to ensure that, in essence, these fees are not tuition dollars. Chief Counsel Patterson felt that the request was acceptable under the Board’s fee policy.UNLV Provost Smatresk added that as self supporting programs, all School of Dental Medicine program fees were recovered by the program and not by the state. Regent Gallagher moved approval of the Procedures & Guidelines ManualRevision for Registration & Special Fee Request for the Advanced Education Program in Pediatric Dentistry, School Of Dental Medicine, UNLV. Regent Knecht seconded. Motion carried. Regents Alden, Page and Schofield were absent.27. Approved - Suspension of Annual Step Increases on the Community College Academic Salary Schedule, FY2010 and FY2011 (Agenda Item #28)– The Board of Regents approved the request of Executive Vice Chancellor Daniel J. Klaich and Presidents Lucey, Sheehan, Richards and Diekhans, to temporarily suspend(FY2010 and FY2011 only)the annual step/salary increase provisions for academic faculty at the community colleges due to the non-appropriation of state funds for these increases. Board policy (Title 4, Chapter 3, Section 30)and procedures established by the Chancellor (P&G Manual, Chapter 3, Section 2.3) require that annually, a full-time faculty member will automatically receive a one step increase if the faculty member’s annual evaluation indicates satisfactory or above performance. Faculty at the universities and state college will not receive a merit increase for FY2010 and FY2011 due also to lack of state funding.Regent Geddes moved approval of the suspension of annual step increases on the Community College Academic Salary Schedule, FY2010 and FY2011. Regent Rawson secondedRegent Crear asked if this request was the equivalent of COLA. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich clarified that it was equivalent to merit at the universities, which had also not been approved.

27. Approved - Suspension of Annual Step Increases on the Community College Academic Salary Schedule, FY2010 and FY2011 (Agenda Item #28)– (Cont’d.)Regent Crear noted that, in addition to the 4% furlough and that COLA had not been approved, the community colleges would now not receive merit. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich indicated that was correct, however, that applied to all of the institutions, not just the community colleges.Chair Wixom asked if it was fair to say that this was to address the overall budget crisis. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich replied that this request was being made to avoid an unfunded mandate for the community colleges which would require them to essentially cut their operating budgets by this amount. He added that a sunset did apply to this request.Motion carried. Regents Alden and Page were absent.28. Approved - Procedures & Guidelines Manual Revision, Student Health Service and Health Insurance Rates (Agenda Item #29)– The Board of Regents approved Vice Chancellor Mike Reed’s request for revision of Student Health Service and Health Insurance Rates. In accordance with Board policy (Title 4, Chapter 17, Section 18), student fees require Board approval. This agenda item addresses 2009-10 student health service fees and student health insurance rates. These revised student fees will be codified in the NSHE Procedures and Guidelines Manual, and will be effective for the Fall 2009 semester (PGM Chapter 7, Section 5(F)).(Ref. BOR-29 on file in the Board office.)Vice Chancellor Reed pointed out that all of the Health Insurance Rate changes, as proposed, were voluntary programs except for the international students, as noted on page 3 of the reference material (Ref. BOR-29). The Student Health Service fee was mandatory per semester, and per summer school semester at UNLV.Mr. Jamie Davidson, Assistant Vice President for Wellness, UNLV, related that the requested increase was pursuant to a policy passed in 2003 that allows the health fee to increase by the medical inflation rate as determined by the Consumer Price Index, which was 2.6% for the current year.Regent Rawson asked how many students currently utilize the health service. Mr. Davidson indicated that last year there were 40,000 visits to UNLV’s integrated health center. There were approximately 19,000 students served.Regent Rawson asked if the health center financially broke even. Mr. Davidson replied that it did.Regent Geddes clarified that these fees were all voluntary except for the international and summer school students at UNLV. Vice Chancellor Reed replied that the Health Services fees were mandatory, including the summer school semester at UNLV, and that the Health Insurance Rate fees were voluntary, except for international students (Page 3 of reference BOR-29).

28. Approved - Procedures & Guidelines Manual Revision, Student Health Service and Health Insurance Rates (Agenda Item #29)– (Cont’d.)Regent Gallagher moved approval of Procedures & Guidelines Manual Revision, Student Health Service and Health Insurance Rates. Regent Leavitt seconded. Motion carried. Regents Alden and Page were absent.29. Information Only - Regents’ Ad Hoc Efficiency and Effectiveness Committee for the Nevada System of Higher Education(Agenda Item #30)– The Board of Regents continued its discussion of the intended goals of the Regents’ Ad Hoc Efficiency and Effectiveness Committee (handout on file in the Board office).Chair Wixom related that the Board’s efforts in connection with this item were particularly important as there had been several initiatives proposed during the last legislative session that sought to impose this type of mandate upon the System. The Board asked the legislature not to impose those mandates because it would be counterproductive given the ongoing efforts of the System. Chair Wixom related that Regent Geddes had been asked to lead that effort with the presidents. Regent Geddes reported that the budget and furlough situation had hampered progress on this item. However, some efficiencies had already been identified. He related that specific action will be requested at the August Board meeting.Chair Wixom related that this was a vital effort on the part of the Board and needed to be pursued diligently. In regard to long-term efforts, the Board was trying to resolve a number of important items so that it could more appropriately focus on policy-related issues. He added that the budget process for the next biennium will begin in just a few days and it will be important for the System to document and convey the efforts that it has made.Regent Cobb asked if the itemized information on the impacts of the budget reductions to each campus should be part of this initiative. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich felt that would be appropriate, adding that the information will also be reformatted into a more user-friendly document.Regent Leavitt reminded the Board that a Board self-assessment workshop had been scheduled in July. In preparation for that meeting, a survey had been distributed to the Regents. He urged those Regents that had not already returned that survey, to do so as the information was crucial for a productive discussion.30. Information Only - Distance Education as Cost-Saving Strategy (Agenda Item #31)– Vice Chancellor Jane Nichols made a presentation reviewing current information on whether distance education was a potential cost saving strategy for NSHE institutions in the current fiscal environment (Ref. BOR-31 on file in the Board office).

30. Information Only - Distance Education as Cost-Saving Strategy (Agenda Item #31)– (Cont’d.)Ø Success of Distance Education (DE):— DE has highest rate of growth for any classes within NSHE. 24,656 students were enrolled in at least one DE course in Fall 2007.— CSN and UNLV have the largest number of students taking distance education courses.— NSC, GBC and TMCC have largest proportion of students enrolled in distance education courses.— Fifty degrees and six certificates are currently offered completely online within NSHE.Ø Major Driving Forces:— Value to student in flexibility.— Learning effectiveness in DE or “blended” courses is equal to or better than face-to- face alone.— Instructor can treat all students equally and prepare and deliver course as a single entity.— Growing competitive environment in higher education and need to provide quality online instruction is a matter of survival. — NSHE Master Plan Target: Expand distance education offerings so that, on average, all students participate in some technology-mediated instruction prior to graduation.— Today’s students are accustomed to current web technology and expect state-of-the-art use in all classes. Even students living on campus often take at least one course through distance education.Ø Cost of Distance Education:· Accreditation requirements demand equivalent access for remote distance education students to all student services provided on campus, including disability accommodations, counseling, tutoring, library references, and testing.· New technological tools for online learning are emerging monthly, requiring new updates and technology.· Faculty development/training essential to learn different strategies for teaching online or by video, necessitating an extra expense.· Rather than saving faculty time, distance education courses generally require faculty to spend more time communicating with students, at all hours and often seven days a week.Ø Additional often overlooked costs:— Program management.— Instructional Designers to assist faculty with course development.— Online tutorials for faculty and students.— Online student services.— Server administration.— Course software administration.— Helpdesk support.

30. Information Only - Distance Education as Cost-Saving Strategy (Agenda Item #31)– (Cont’d.)Vice Chancellor Nichols related that the costs associated with distance learning are not necessarily greater or less than those for traditional teaching, adding that the costs were simply different.Ø Cost to Students: — Small additional fee per credit may be offset by savings - such as transportation to and from campus every day or on-campus housing.— Always less expensive for students in remote geographic areas who would have to travel long distances.— Most of NSHE students enrolled in DE courses are students who also take courses on campuses and whose savings are less certain.Ø Cost to State/Institutions:— DE courses may enable institutions to build fewer classrooms, heat/cool fewer buildings, construct fewer parking lots, but such savings are difficult to quantify.— DE courses do allow institutions to collaborate on degrees without duplicating every course and thus to use faculty more effectively, a cost savings.— Additional DE costs that are often hidden include licensing fees, royalties, technology infrastructure, technicians to support delivery, space for offsite delivery of video courses or services.— Institutions try to find efficient methods of DE instruction and delivery at lowest cost. But, the use of part-time, perhaps out-of-state, faculty and prepackaged courses have to be evaluated carefully in relation to quality and monitored by the institution’s faculty.— Thus, significant cost savings are difficult to realize.Ø Conclusions:— DE courses are vital for providing access to higher education for all students in Nevada, regardless of their location.— The demand for DE courses is expected to continue to grow.— There are many on-going costs associated with the support of DE courses that are crucial to offering quality courses.§ Therefore, distance education cannot be viewed as a cost-saving strategy. — The potential exists for collaboration among NSHE institutions on DE courses and programs, but currently no specific strategy exists for the development and reward of these collaborations.· Limited long-term cost savings may result from collaborations and less physical plant, but higher delivery costs mean that Presidents cannot use distance education to save costs in times of budget shortfall.Regent Rawson asked if the online courses were less expensive to the student than traditional courses. Vice Chancellor Nichols clarified that the cost for an online course was exactly the same as for a traditional course.

30. Information Only - Distance Education as Cost-Saving Strategy (Agenda Item #31)– (Cont’d.)Regent Cobb asked if it was true that Great Basin College was the institution with the greatest number of distance education students. President Diekhans replied that as of the last SCS survey, GBC utilized 45% of the System’s video bandwidth for its videoconference classes. He added that GBC owned approximately 30-35 video sites throughout their service area as well as access to the high school sites.Chair Wixom felt that there was a difference between numbers of students taking online courses versus successful outcomes. He would like to know how outcomes are measured, what those successful outcomes were and how the System has been doing in those measures. Vice Chancellor Nichols related that in the System’s annual report on distance education, information is provided on the number of ways to look at student success in individual courses. She indicated that data on degree completion was not tracked at the System level, but would need to come from the institutions. However, most of the degrees available were offered completely online.Chair Wixom indicated that his concern was that overtime it will have been determined that distance education courses will not have had a significant impact on graduation or completion rates and the significant cost and use of resources will have been for nothing. Before those resources are devoted to this level of project, he asked for some comfort that it will have been money well spent.President Richards related that CSN has approximately 19,000 online enrollments per year and currently offered 28 degree programs completely online. However, they are finding that the majority of enrollments are a combination of online and traditional courses.Chair Wixom asked if there was national data from which lessons could be extrapolated to our own System. President Richards related that CSN’s data indicates that among the various departments, success (completion)rates range from 38% to 63% in individual courses. Chair Wixom asked how successful online students were compared to traditional students. President Richards related that comparison has not been conducted.President Sheehan indicated that TMCC currently offered 25% of their classes online. She related that online students complete at a lesser rate than traditional students by approximately 20% to 30%. Also, the younger the online student is, the more likely they are to not complete the course. She related that TMCC was in the process of tracking that information. They are also in the process of developing a mandatory online orientation program.Chair Wixom felt that there would be a higher success rate if students were guided through an online course. For example, if there was a particular major that required a certain number of online courses and a certain number of traditional classes, and that it was controlled through a guidance process as opposed to allowing students to determine which classes to take. He sensed a rush towards online and distance learning, yet he

30. Information Only - Distance Education as Cost-Saving Strategy (Agenda Item #31)– (Cont’d.)has not seen data on whether or not this leads to successful outcomes on a long term basis. Vice Chancellor Nichols replied that the models of institutions that do primarily online education have been very successful in student success. However, it depends in great part on how and for whom it is done. Certain groups must be targeted. It was also important that the academic perspective for online courses be exactly the same as for traditional courses.President Maryanksi related that NSC offers approximately 30% of its courses online. NSC Provost Lesley Di Mare related that NSC had appointed an online task force to consider the positive and negative effects of online teaching. Consequently, NSC joined an organization called Eduventures. That organization allows its partners to look at the research that has been done on these exact questions both nationally and comparatively.Chair Wixom asked Provost Di Mare to coordinate with Vice Chancellor Nichols and with the other institutions. He also asked that this topic be an ongoing Council of Presidents’ issue. The System needed to make sure that its online efforts were in line with its productivity measures. He asked Vice Chancellor Nichols to coordinate the collection of that data and to provide a report to the Board at some point in the future.Regent Leavitt asked, for Northwest accreditation purposes, how many online credits could be taken for a bachelor’s degree. Vice Chancellor Nichols replied that, for accreditation purposes, no differentiation existed between distance education and traditional courses.Regent Leavitt asked if it was possible for all 120 credits to be taken online. Vice Chancellor Nichols stated that was very possible, adding that accreditation standards do not prevent or limit that possibility. However, the standards do require that there be the same level of faculty oversight and educational quality. Regent Leavitt asked if the System should or could provide all degrees online. Vice Chancellor Nichols replied that each institution was different in their approach, adding that there was no single blueprint.Regent Leavitt asked if there was a desire among the students to completely finish their degrees entirely online. President Glick felt that there was not a demand from the student body at UNR for a completely online degree. However, that did not mean that the students do not want the individual courses online for convenience. He emphasized that offering online courses was not a cost savings measure, it was an access measure. He also reinforced that he would hope that distance education be left in the realm of mission differentiation. UNR has not received a great demand except for students who are in rural areas, adding that there were not a significant number of those students.President Ashley indicated that within the last year, UNLV’s online program has experienced 30% growth. There were several graduate level courses fully on line, as well as some undergraduate degree programs that have the majority of content courses

30. Information Only - Distance Education as Cost-Saving Strategy (Agenda Item #31)– (Cont’d.)fully online. Offering entirely online graduate degrees has not been pursued. He related that online courses were supported primarily through education outreach and was therefore almost entirely self supporting. He felt that the increased demand for online courses was due to the increased demand for flexibility.Regent Rawson felt that online courses allow students to receive their degree in 3-4 years instead of 5 years. However, there were some classes that do not lend themselves to the online environment. He related that he had taught a dental anthropology course in the regular and online classroom. It was a far harder course for him to teach online but it did not require the classroom space. He could see why campuses that are pressed for classroom space may want to implement more online courses. He did agree that online courses increased the faculty workload.President Lucey stated that this was an incredibly complex issue. 18% of WNC’s classes were available online and that lower number reflected their caution due to the available data on retention and success. She felt that it came down to the type of student, the type of class and how committed the instructor was to achieving high levels of completion despite the medium. She stated that for a young learner that does not have college experience, it can be a devastating experience that may seriously undermine their future educational goals. However, for a 30-35 year old returning student who simply does not have time to deal with their job and family and get to campus, online courses are a life saver.President Diekhans related that nationally, the average completion rate for online courses was 50%. However, GBC averages 70% completion for online courses and 80% completion rate for their traditional courses.The meeting recessed at 1:28 p.m. and reconvened at 1:37 p.m. on Friday, June 19, 2009, with all members present except for Regent Alden.31. Approved - Election of Officers (Agenda Item #32)- In accordance with Regents’ Bylaws (Article IV, Section 2), the Board of Regent held an election of officers for FY 2009-10. These officers will serve from July 1, 2009, through June 30, 2010. (Ref. BOR-32 on file in the Board office.)Chair Wixom related that nominations for the Chair will be requested, followed by a roll call vote. If one nominee receives 7 or more votes, he or she will be elected Chair. The same process will be followed for the election of Vice Chair.A. Regent Knecht nominated Regent Leavitt.Upon a roll call vote, Regents Wixom, Blakely, Cobb, Crear, Gallagher, Geddes, Knecht, Leavitt, Page, Rawson and Schofield voted to approve the nomination of Regent Leavitt as Chair. Motion carried. Regent Alden was absent.

32. Approved – Audit Committee (Agenda Item #33)– Acting Chair Dorothy S. Gallagher reported that the Audit Committee met on June 18, 2009, and heard the following reports:The Committee received a report from representatives Ms. Kim McCormick and Mr. Brian Wallace, of the external audit firm, Grant Thornton, LLP. They reviewed their independence letter and their audit preparation for the June 30, 2009, audit.The Committee received follow-up responses for four internal audit reports that were presented to the Audit Committee at its December 2008 meeting. The Committee also received a follow-up report on the University of Nevada, School of Medicine Practice Plan Management Letter for the year ended June 30, 2008.The Committee requested the Business Officers Council review institution equipment inventory and accounts receivable procedures at the next meeting.Action Items:Board action was requested to approve the following recommendations of the Audit Committee.Ø Minutes – The Committee recommended approval of the minutes from the April 2, 2009, Committee meeting (Ref. A-1 on file in the Board office).Ø Internal Audit Reports – The Committee recommended for approval the following internal audit reports (Ref. Audit Summary): ü Educational Outreach, UNLV (Ref. A-4 on file in the Board office). ü Grants-In-Aid & Fee Waivers, System Administration & SCS (Ref. A-5 on file in the Board office).ü Presidential Exit Audit, TMCC (Ref. A-6 on file in the Board office). ü Utilization of Instructional Space, WNC (Ref. A-7 on file in the Board office). ü Utilization of Instructional Space, NSC (Ref. A-8 on file in the Board office). Ø Procedures & Guidelines Manual Revision, Identity Theft Prevention Programs – The Committee recommended for approval the UNR, WNC and NSHE Identity Theft Prevention Program (Ref. A-14 on file in the Board office).Regent Gallagher moved acceptance of the report and approval of committee recommendations. Regent Geddes seconded. Motion carried. Regents Alden and Page were absent.

33. Approved – Budget & Finance Committee (Agenda Item #34)– Chair Ron Knecht reported that the Budget & Finance Committee met on June 18, 2009, and heard the following reports:All Funds revenues and expenses of the NSHE for the third quarter of fiscal year 2008-2009.NSHE Fiscal Exceptions of self-supporting budgets and the status of state appropriations for the third quarter of fiscal year 2008-2009.Budget transfers of state appropriated funds between functions for the third quarter of fiscal year 2008-2009.The Committee discussed the development and reporting of various data elements that would be useful for budgeting, assessment, strategic planning, and management decisions, in addition to the current NSHE Performance Indicators. The discussion touched upon the need for Higher Education to look at the NSHE is doing and the possibility of assembling a package of short, concise facts and figures about NSHE that could guide strategic planning and management decisions.Action Items:Board action was requested to approve the following recommendations of the Budget and Finance Committee:Ø Minutes – The Committee recommended approval of the minutes from the April 2, 2009, Committee meeting (Ref. BF-1 on file in the Board office).Ø The Committee recommended approval for Truckee Meadow Community College and Great Basin College to expend excess student registration fees for the purpose of funding additional part time faculty due to an increase in enrollments(Ref. BF-5 on file in the Board office).Ø The Committee recommended approval of a resolution to allow the NSHE, on behalf of the Desert Research Institute, to enter into an amendment of the Reimbursement Agreement in order to extend the Letter of Credit with Bank of America, N.A. for a period of 3 years (Agenda Item #16).Regent Knecht moved acceptance of the report and approval of committee recommendations. Regent Geddes seconded. Motion carried. Regents Alden and Page were absent.

34. Approved – Cultural Diversity & Security Committee (Agenda Item #35)- Chair Cedric Crear reported that the Cultural Diversity & Security Committee met on June 18, 2009, and heard the following reports:The Committee received a report from CSN representatives on the current initiatives of the institution that are designed to promote diversity and inclusive practices. The

34. Approved – Cultural Diversity & Security Committee (Agenda Item #35)–(Cont’d.)Committee requested a system-wide report in six months on the drop-out rates of Native American students and what institutions are doing to improve such rates in light of the 100 percent dropout rate among students at Moapa Valley High School.Dr. Christine Clark, Co-chair of the NSHE Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion Council, presented a report on the outcome of the Council’s recent meetings.Assistant Vice Chancellor Crystal Abba presented highlights from the 2007-08NSHE Diversity Report including information on the ethnic/racial distribution of students, faculty, and staff and diversity-related performance indicators.Mr. Michael Murray, Deputy Director of the UNLV Department of Police Services presented an update to the UNLV campus crime statistics report submitted for the April 2, 2009, Committee meeting. The update addressed specific questions regarding the number of illegal weapons possession incidents reported and other UNLV campus crime statistics.The Committee reviewed and discussed UNLV’s Hate Crimes Policy, including a discussion of specifically how the policy was developed over time and modifications made to address the concerns of all campus constituents. The institution is in the process of refining the policy on bias in an effort for the UNLV Faculty Senate to address all concerns expressed on the matter.Action Items:

Board action was requested to approve the following recommendations of the Cultural Diversity and Security Committee:

Ø Minutes – The Committee recommended approval of the minutes of the April 2, 2009, Committee meeting (Ref. CDS-1 on file in the Board office).

Regent Crear moved acceptance of the report and approval of committee recommendations. Regent Blakely seconded. Motion carried. Regents Alden and Page were absent.

Ø Minutes – The Committee recommended approval of the minutes from the April 2, 2009, Committee meeting (Ref. SAA-1 on file in the Board office).

Ø The Committee recommended approval of a revision to Board policy on university requirements for graduation, changing the minimum number of credits required for a bachelor’s degree from 124 to 120 credits (Title 4, Chapter 16, Section 17) (Ref. SAA-2 on file in the Board office);

Ø The Committee requested that staff explore the matter of eliminating the university credit requirement completely, which will be brought to a future meeting for discussion.

Ø The Committee recommended approval of arevision to Board policy concerning the early admission and enrollment of vocational secondary students at NSHE institutions providing that credit may be given for tech prep courses previously completed in the freshman and sophomore year of high school by high school juniors and senior identified as Vocational Program Completers (Title 4, Chapter 16, Section 7) (Ref. SAA-3 on file in the Board office) ;

Ø The Committee recommended approval of an update to the joint policy statement of the Nevada State Board of Education, the State Board for Career and Technical Education, and the Board of Regents concerning the Tech Prep/Associate Degree program developed in accordance with the goals of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Applied Technology Education Act of 1990;

Ø The Committee recommended approval ofa revision to NSHE grading policy providing that institutions may denote a course as “in progress” or IPpending completion of the course or end of the term, and further providing for appropriate grade indicators for replaced grades and for cases of academic renewal when all course grades within a term are removed according to an institution’s academic renewal policy (Title 4, Chapter 16, Section 39) (Ref. SAA-4 on file in the Board office) ;

Ø The Committee recommended approval of a revision to the Board’s policy regarding the student information system, providing a System-wide “opt-out” provision, incorporating recent changes to the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, revising the definition of “school officials” to be consistent with the Procedures and Guidelines Manual, and providing campus guidelines for a non-disclosure statement to student regarding student directory information (Title 4, Chapter 16, Section 26 and P&G Manual, Chapter 6, Section 13) (Ref. SAA-5 on file in the Board office);

Ø The Committee requested additional information on the use of collection agencies by institutions and at what point student accounts are turned over to an agency for collection – this information will be brought back to a future meeting for discussion.

Ø The Committee recommended approval of a revision to the Board’s policy on deferred payment plans allowing institutions to implement deferred payment plans that align with their institutional mission and meet the needs of all students and that offers greater flexibility in establishing requirements and minimum balance amounts (Title 4, Chapter 17, Section 15). In response to student concerns, the Committee changed the policy as presented to make the final allowable date for payment under deferred payment plans the end of the semester or course, whichever comes first, rather than the tenth week of the semester(Ref. SAA-6 on file in the Board office).

Regent Schofield moved acceptance of the report and approval of committee recommendations. Regent Blakely seconded. Motion carried. Regents Alden and Page were absent.

36. Approved – Technology Committee (Agenda Item #34)- Chair Cedric Crear reported that the Technology Committee met on June 16, 2009, and heard the following reports:Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich provided an update on the activities to establish permanent leadership for the System Computing Services (SCS)organization at NSHE. Since Interim Vice Chancellor Moulton has come on board, Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich states that feedback about SCS has been complimentary. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich stated that Project Director Robyn R. Render has proven herself in the management of the iNtegrate Project which anticipates its first go lives this fall currently on time and under budget. As part of the plan for transformation of SCS, it is intended that a recommendation will be brought before the Board of Regents in August that Robyn Render be hired as Vice Chancellor of IT. Further, Bob Moulton has been asked to extend his consulting services contract acting as Chief Operating Officer of SCS. Chair Crear led a discussion among Committee members and staff to update all on recent developments, current status and future direction of the iNtegrate project. The discussion included general project progress and project risks. Director Robyn Render reported on an overview of the project’s financials. iNtegrate will have approximately $7.5 million remaining in the budget at the end of fiscal year June 2009. Starting June 2010, NSHE would need an additional infusion into the project budget to complete the third implementation year. To date, Director Render stated that the project is under budget by approximately $300,000.Chair Crear led a discussion that included a review of campus backfill funding. In FY10, the two pilots will submit a request to Director Render on how they want to use their allocation of $250,000 for backfilling staff, which will consume the backfill amount for the entire project.Chair Crear confirmed with Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich that despite recent budget cut actions, the funds for iNtegrate have not been touched nor deferred and that those dollars are there for the institutions’ backfill needs. NSHE was fortunate with a portion of their investments funds allocated to the iNtegrate project to have cashed out before the downturn in the market. However, Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich declared that there are other backfill costs at the campus level that are not funded in the iNtegrate project and have never been funded in the iNtegrate project. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich stated that the staffing burden on campuses is made more difficult with the budget crisis. NSHE is investigating alternatives that will satisfy future funding challenges. However, Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich acknowledged there will be pain at the co-pilot campuses as stretched staff perform their regular duties as well as continue to work on the project.Director Render continued her report on major pilot institution milestones. The first go live deadlines are for Admissions -- September 14 for UNLV; and October 12 for TMCC. Subsequent to that in February, March and Fall of 2010 will be the remaining go live milestones for the pilots. Then the process starts over again for the remaining co-pilots in 2010 and 2011.

36. Approved – Technology Committee (Agenda Item #34)– (Cont’d.)Director Render explained that NSHE has always maintained a commitment to a “vanilla” implementation – as close to out of the box software set up as possible. However, vanilla does not satisfy all of the business requirements of NSHE and it was always planned in the contract to have a few modifications. Thus far, the number of approved modifications is minimal.Chair Crear queried whether these modifications were included at the time of contract negotiations and that there was a consistent “apples-to-apples” comparison. Chief Counsel Bart Patterson answered that all bidders were treated equally – and that all were required to bid on certain software customizations that NSHE knew it would need. In addition, hourly rates were contractually locked in should other customizations be required at a later date. Further, Chief Counsel Patterson affirmed that software enhancements would have been required regardless of what vendor NSHE contracted with as none of the products were written to suit all of the business practices of Nevada.Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich went on to explain that the goal for NSHE has always been to have an integrated resources planning platform. The endeavor is that the platform is in place and it stays in place – where the campuses are not allowed to tweak the configuration to the point that disparate models exist that don’t allow for apples-to-apples management. Executive Vice Chancellor Klaich went on to say that the campuses would sometimes not be able to do what they wish to do with the system because project management has been tasked with keeping base elements consistent and constant.Chair Crear asked what difference the students would experience when go lives occurred in the fall for the UNLV and TMCC institutions. Director Render stated that for students being admitted this fall, they will simply use a new tool to submit and process their applications. For students already familiar with the online access to these resources, it will be perceived as a seamless transition. Chair Crear stated that it was extremely important that word of these positive improvements happening in our community be conveyed as institutions implement and go live. Director Render stated that a major project milestone will be reached before the end of June with the completion of bio-demo conversion effort: the combining of all institutions’ student information data into in a single representation of the population of students and faculty in NSHE. This process has required the reconciliation and removal of duplicates for over 1.5 million records, a heroic undertaking at the institutions. Regent Wixom expressed concern at a negative divergence seen in a graph in the summary report, and potential project slippage. Director Render stated that a negative divergence is not untypical and attributed the divergence to the bio demo conversion. The planned timeline was missed, but the project caught up. The project implementation team closely monitors all activities to ensure timely progress is made and that changes are made when needed. Regent Wixom suggested that a monthly report be sent to the chair of this committee. When Regent Leavitt reminded Regent Wixom this is the last meeting of the ad hoc Technology Committee, it was suggested the monthly project report be folded into the Business and Finance report for that committee’s chair. Executive Vice Chancellor

36. Approved – Technology Committee (Agenda Item #34)– (Cont’d.)Klaich clarified that the iNtegrate project governance structure created an Executive Oversight Committee to oversee any major changes to the project and the project’s governance calls for a Regent to sit on that committee. Regent Leavitt agreed that the Board should consider Regent Crear to sit on the Executive Oversight Committee. Director Render affirmed that report would be prepared and made available starting in July.As this is the last meeting for this committee, Regent Leavitt thanked Chair Crear for his service and hard work. Regent Wixom and Regent Schofield avowed their appreciation as well.

Action Items:

Board action was requested to approve the following recommendations of the Technology Committee:

Ø Minutes – The Committee recommended approval of the minutes from the March 30, 2009, Committee meeting (Ref. TC-1 on file in the Board office).

Regent Crear moved acceptance of the report and approval of committee recommendations. Regent Geddes seconded. Motion carried. Regents Alden and Page were absent.

37. Approved – Board Development Committee (Agenda Item #38)- Chair James Dean Leavitt reported that the Board Development Committee met on June 12, 2009, and heard the following reports:The Committee reviewed and discussed proposed changes to the NSHE mission statement, as presented by Vice Chancellor Nichols (Ref. BD-2 on file in the Board office).Regent Knecht recommended that a sentence regarding public service be added to the governance section. He also felt it was important to recognize the diversity of the institutional missions within the System mission statement.The Committee agreed that the System’s primary mission is to provide higher education services to the citizens of Nevada. Regent Rawson suggested that a sentence be added to the first paragraph recognizing the System’s additional responsibility of providing services to those beyond the borders of our state.Chair Leavitt recommended an addition to the mission statement citing Article 11 of the Constitution of the State of Nevada. He believes that a constitutional mandate for the System to provide these services of higher education is of tremendous value and weight.The Committee requested that Vice Chancellor Nichols bring forward a revised proposal to the full Board at its August 2009 meeting reflecting these changes.

Action Items: - (Cont’d.)Board action was requested for the following recommendations of the Board Development Committee:Ø Minutes – The Committee recommended approval of the minutes from the March 27, 2009, Committee meeting (Ref. BD-1 on file in the Board office).Regent Leavitt moved acceptance of the report and approval of committee recommendations. Regent Blakely seconded. Motion carried. Regents Alden and Page were absent.

38. Approved – Investment Committee (Agenda Item #39)- Chair James Dean Leavitt reported that the Investment Committee met on June 12, 2009, and heard the following reports:Mr. David Main from Commonfund gave an update on the liquidity status of NSHE’s short term accounts.Vice Chancellor Mike Reed and System Office staff reported on the activities and the most current balance of the reserve account of the operating pool fund.Vice Chancellor Mike Reed and System Office staff reported on the liquidity status of the operating pool. Action Items:Board action was requested to approve the following recommendations of the Investment Committee:

Ø Minutes – The Committee recommended approval of the minutes from the March 27, 2009, Committee meeting (Ref. INV-1 on file in the Board office).

Ø The Committee heard a report from Cambridge Associates and approved the recommendation to invest 10 million dollars of endowment funds in the Adage Company on July 1, 2009, and access the 10 million dollars from the Vanguard S&P Index portfolio.

Ø The Committee approved for both operating and endowment funds to exchange existing shares in the Och Ziff fund, which include side pockets investments, for shares in the general fund with no side pocket investments.

38. Approved – Investment Committee (Agenda Item #39)– (Cont’d.)

Action Items: - (Cont’d.)

Ø The Committee approved UNLV’s interlocal agreements between the City of North Las Vegas and the Nellis Airforce Base as required to support federal land conveyance legislation currently under consideration by the United States Congress. In discussing the matter, Regent Wixom expressed concern that the interlocal agreements are ambiguous about the extent to which the Board and/or UNLV may be obligated to address the remediation effort which must be completed before title is transferred. Further, Regent Wixom also expressed concern that the land use restrictions for promoting commercial development as noted in the interlocal agreements may impede UNLV’s ability to secure financing in the future (Ref. INV-6 on file in the Board office).

Ø The Committee recommended approval of UNLV’s ground lease for the Hotel/Conference Center for the Hospitality Campus Project(Ref. INV-7 on file in the Board office).

Ø The Committee recommended approval of UNLV’s property acquisition of 5111 Dalton Drive(Ref. INV-8 on file in the Board office).

Ø The Committee recommended approval of UNLV’s property acquisition of 961 Toni Avenue(Ref. INV-9 on file in the Board office).

Ø The Committee recommended approval of a deed that transfers 29.36 acre feet of water rights to TMWA for UNR’s Center for Molecular Medicine(Ref. INV-10 on file in the Board office).

Ø The Committee recommended approval of UNR’s lease with College Optical Express Nevada, LLC, for retail space in the Joe Crowley Student Union(Ref. INV-11 on file in the Board office).Ø The Committee recommended approval for the title to the Shadow Lane Campus be re-titled from the “Board of Regents of the University and Community College System of Nevada, on Behalf of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas” to the “Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education”(Ref. INV-13 on file in the Board office).New Business:Ø Vice Chancellor Mike Reed reported that there will be a discussion at next week’s Business Officers meeting regarding the development of procedures and guidelines for space utilization and deferred maintenance of NSHE facilities, and the progress will be reported at the next meeting of the Investment Committee.Regent Leavitt moved acceptance of the report and approval of committee recommendations. Regent Blakely seconded. Motion carried. Regents Alden and Page were absent.

39. Approved – Research & Economic Development Committee (Agenda Item #40)- Chair Jack Lund Schofield reported that the Research & Economic Development Committee met on June 11, 2009, and heard the following reports:The Committee received an update on the Walker Basin project, including communications projects, status reports on research projects, meetings of the stakeholders committee, activities of the acquisitions team, and details on the upcoming report to the Basin and the International Desert Terminal Lakes Symposium. The Committee was informed of an upcoming event on June 24, 2009, in the Yerington High School multipurpose room where project researchers will present their work in an interactive session to residents of the Walker Basin.Staff presented the first annual report on compensated outside professional and scholarly services and conflicts of interest submitted by NSHE institutions and System Administration as is required by Board policy.The Committee also received a report from Dr. Oliver Hemmers, Executive Director of the Harry Reid Center for Environmental Studies, and Emeritus Professor Dr. David Emerson on the many activities currently underway and planned at UNLV related to clean energy, including solar, biofuels, geothermal, and nuclear research. The presentation highlighted the work of the Harry Reid Center and the Center for Energy Research.

Action Items:

Board action was requested to approve the following recommendations of the Research and Economic Development Committee:

Ø Minutes – The Committee recommended approval of the minutes from the March 26, 2009, Committee meeting (Ref. RED-2 on file in the Board office).Ø The Committee recommended approval of the Nevada Science and Technology Plan (Ref. RED-5 on file in the Board office).

Regent Schofield moved acceptance of the report and approval of committee recommendations. Regent Blakely seconded. Motion carried. Regents Alden and Page were absent.

40. Approved – Health Sciences System Committee (Agenda Item #41)- Chair Dorothy S. Gallagher reported that the Health Sciences System Committee met on June 11, 2009, and heard the following:The Committee was provided with an update on the Health Sciences System Work Plan by Dr. Trevisan, including details on progress that is being made in various initiatives highlighted in the Plan and an overview of the strategic planning efforts. Dr. Karen West, Dean of the University of Nevada, School of Dental Medicine, provided the Committee with an overview of the School of Dental Medicine and its educational, clinical and outreach programs and its student profile. This overview included a video which provided additional details on these programs and students.

40. Approved – Health Sciences System Committee (Agenda Item #41)– (Cont’d.).The Committee discussed a proposed change to the title of the Shadow Lane Campus and an adjacent parcel and recommended to the Investment Committee that it consider changing the title from “Board of Regents of the University and Community College System of Nevada, on behalf of the University of Nevada, Las Vegas” to “Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education.” In discussing this proposed title change, the Committee discussed and recognized the importance of efforts currently underway to determine an appropriate and equitable means of addressing UNLV’s investment in the Shadow Lane Campus. Staff will be providing the Committee with a progress report on these efforts at its next meeting. The Committee was provided with an overview of the initial efforts to work on the Shadow Lane Campus master plan for the development of inter-institutional and interdisciplinary health sciences activities. Vice Chancellor Turner reported that a team of architects is working to identify the physical capacity of the Campus, as well as helping to facilitate a team of NSHE health science stakeholders in identifying potential programmatic opportunities for developing research, academic, clinical and/or administrative space on the Campus. HSS staff will be providing the Committee with an update on these efforts at its next meeting.Action items:Board action was requested to approve the following recommendations of the Regents’ Health Sciences System Committee:Ø Minutes – The Committee recommended approval of the minutes of the March 26, 2009, Committee meeting(Ref. HSS-1 on file in the Board office).Regent Gallagher moved acceptance of the report and approval of committee recommendations. Regent Rawson seconded. Motion carried. Regents Alden and Page were absent.41. New Business (Agenda Item #42)– None.The meeting adjourned at 1:51 p.m.Prepared by: Jessica C. MorrisAdministrative Assistant IVSubmitted for approval by: Scott G. WassermanChief Executive Officer of the Board of Regents

Approved by the Board of Regents at the September 17-18, 2009, meeting.